Prev: Re: [FT] Machine People Next: Re: [CON] ECC IV - winter time?

Re: [FT] Machine People

From: "Laserlight" <laserlight@q...>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 21:45:55 -0400
Subject: Re: [FT] Machine People

Laserlight said:
> >As described thus far, the Machine People use Mass Pools which
> >are divided into the effects available.  Thus a Mass 100 ship
> >might have:
> >Hull Pool 40 (Default: 30 hull + 10 armor)
> >Drive Pool 30 (default: MD4 + FTL)
> >Energy Weapon  Pool 25 (default: 5 PDS plus 20 mass of Beam2
and
> >Beam3)
> >Sensor Pool 5 (default: 3 FC, 1 ADFC)

(My Mass 100 ship was just an example, I've not thought a great
deal about what the "real" defaults would be.  And the MP would
need some new weapons and/or defenses).

Schoon said:
> At first glance:
> 1) Have the Hull pool be all hull initially

Why?

>- I'd say that armor would have
> to be fabricated, but at an accelerated rate, like deconstruct
10 hull &
> then make 10 armor out of it - rather than 1 point at a time.

I'd think it would be slower.  Actually, I'd think it probably
wouldn't happen, I'm sure there will usually be better things to
do with your limited DCP resources.

> 2) Drive pool works for me, though to add to it, would you
deconstruct
> weapons and then add to the drives? That's what I would guess,
but I could
> be wrong.

I'm somewhat leary of letting people change back and forth
between drives and weapons but it might be ok.

> 3) Say a percentage of the Weapons Pool (I wouldn't call it the
Energy
> Pool) is PDSs, but after that, things get more dicey. I'd say
that there
> would be a default percentage for each beam type (like
25%/50%/25%) with
> zero of the given weapon if the result is less than the MASS
for the given
> battery.

I know standard FB designs have a mix of beam types but I've
never understood why.  One would think we were still waiting for
Dreadnought to be built.

> OK, your MASS 100 ship would have 5 DCPs.

Actually, someone--Brian Bell?--suggested the MP get 1 DCP per 10
mass.

Prev: Re: [FT] Machine People Next: Re: [CON] ECC IV - winter time?